General Music Chat

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy."

Entropy is a property of any discreet system where the components move from a highly ordered state to a disordered state.

"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction of progress, sometimes called an arrow of time. As time progresses, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. Hence, from this perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of clock."

Yod, pease explain how this is incompatible with the Theory of Evolution.

Yod,

Scientific definition of theory often differs than the layman's definition.

There is a really thin line that divides theory from 'law'. Actually, (you wont like it) but the theory of evolution is for all intents and purposes, the 'law' of evolution. The laymen insist on calling it theory , but the credible, hard core scientific consensus is that its 'law'

However... Theory must necessarily emerge from consistent observation of facts: I am told that it follows these principles to qualify as a law (via theory)

"Concept upon concept, precept upon precept, line upon line, upon line."

There is no way to refute evolution as a law.

Please Note: Isaiah 28:10
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little....

-The Precept of Evolution is the Mechanical/physical universe, comprised of numerous laws (which can include laws in a context of spiritual outcomes)

-The Precept of a Creator is the Spiritual Universe, comprised of numerous laws (which can include laws in the context of physical outcomes)

And BTW, The Zen philosophy sites a variety of connections between the two precepts.

Arguments here, against 'creationism', are not viable, robust or anywhere close to examining the full truth of our existence. The same can be said about arguments 'against' evolution.

Me personally, I have a hunch that evolution is a design promulgated by a creator...

Yod, pease explain how this is incompatible with the Theory of Evolution.

There are several things that make evolution incompatable with the laws of science, but this law basically it states that for every action there must be an original cause and that we are in a constant state of de-evolution (decay)

Which, by the way, is where Devo got their name.


Fossils also show that life did not emerge as the result of any evolutionary process, but that it came about suddenly, the product of perfect "design." All the fossils that have ever been found confirm this. Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist from Harvard University and curator of the American Museum of Natural History, explains that there is no possibility that any fossils that might be found in the future could change the situation:

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history—not the artifact of a poor fossil record.

I don't think you understand the law, Yod. Again, very briefly, the second law says that in any isolated system, the components move towards a state of maximum entropy. In other words, they move from an ordered to a disordered state. Again, I ask you, how is this incompatible with evolution?

Me personally, I have a hunch that evolution is a design promulgated by a creator...

Obviously, everything is evolving so I can go along with the theory for a distance. But the conclusions are not monolithic among scientists.

Many honest scientists admit there are still too many holes for this theory to be a proven fact.

Those who swallow it have more faith in their religion that I ever had in mine.



.

Fossils also show that life did not emerge as the result of any evolutionary process, but that it came about suddenly, the product of perfect "design." All the fossils that have ever been found confirm this. Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist from Harvard University and curator of the American Museum of Natural History, explains that there is no possibility that any fossils that might be found in the future could change the situation:

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history—not the artifact of a poor fossil record.

All this tells us is that they 'cant' explain the jump. And with all the evidence, there might be critical evidence that depends on context.

A study was done on a cave discovery where it thought that some up-right 'creature' hunted its prey and dragged it up to a tree. The excavation produced ottowan tools, bones of deer, humanoids and the petrified wood of a tree. It was only years later that they discovered, humans hunted and gathered by that tree...used tools and such, but the bones of a cat-like creature nearby could now explain the the collection of other fraqments and the tree. Two unrelated events mistaken as one, which finally dispelled their theory that humans were draggijng their food up into the trees

I don't think you understand the law, Yod. Again, very briefly, the second law says that in any isolated system, the components move towards a state of maximum entropy. In other words, they move from an ordered to a disordered state. Again, I ask you, how is this incompatible with evolution?

What that means is if you have an explosion in a junk yard it won't produce a Boeing 757 jet all by chance.



Seems like common sense takes a vacation when evolution is the topic.





.

All this tells us is that they 'cant' explain the jump. And with all the evidence, there might be critical evidence that depends on context.

the idea that "science will prove evolution in the future" is no different from believing that "science will one day show that the Earth rests on the back of an elephant."

150 years have gone by since the theory of evolution was first put forward, and all subsequent scientific developments have worked against it. The more science has examined the details of life, the more evidence for the perfection of creation has been found, and the more it has been understood that the emergence of life and its subsequent variation by chance is quite impossible. Every piece of research reveals new evidence of the design in living things, and makes the fact of creation ever clearer. Every decade that has passed since Darwin's time has just revealed the invalidity of the theory of evolution even more.

In short, scientific advances do not favour the theory of evolution.

Somewhere there was a Creator. We might disagree on who, what, when, or how....but the design of everything in the universe clearly points to a designer.






.

Yod, 97% of all scientists accept evolution as fact. So you call 3% a lot? LOL.

You really need to read a book once in a while, and not black books. I recommend Ernst Mayr but I doubt if you could get past the first page or two. "Wonderful Life" by Steven Gould is very good for the non-scientist.

Paperdog, you are referring to Punctuated Equilibrium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Yod, 97% of all scientists accept evolution as fact. So you call 3% a lot? LOL.

You really need to read a book once in a while, and not black books. I recommend Ernst Mayr but I doubt if you could get past the first page or two. "Wonderful Life" by Steven Gould is very good for the non-scientist.

Paperdog, you are referring to Punctuated Equilibrium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

if 99.9999999% of people believe a lie, it is still a lie.




Evolutionists maintain that one species can turn into another by means of mutation and natural selection. All the research carried out on the matter has shown that neither mechanism has any evolutionary effect whatsoever. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, stresses the fact in these words:

No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question

Again....common sense tells us that something as intricately designed as our universe and all it contains was not done by random chance.

I don't need a book to tell me that someone designed and built a boeing 757 jet.

Gotta go....sorry. You guys have fun blasting me for common sense and I'll check back when I get a chance.

It's like talking to a brick wall. In fact I would rather talk to a brick wall.

It's like talking to a brick wall. In fact I would rather talk to a brick wall.

A brick wall would still listen.

I don't think you understand the law, Yod. Again, very briefly, the second law says that in any isolated system, the components move towards a state of maximum entropy. In other words, they move from an ordered to a disordered state. Again, I ask you, how is this incompatible with evolution?

Isn't the original pool of soup in evolution the inverse of that idea?
Low order to higher order, or more precise order?

I know that it is saying, 'in the end, things settle back to a non state'.

There's a period of expended energy, it reaches a certain point, then there is a decay.
Organism is 'born', cells multiply, maturity is reached, decay takes over.
(The cliche "as soon as you're born, you're dying", is false)

Tide comes in, tide goes out.
Breath goes in, breath goes out.


I don't see how that it matters to either evolution or creation.

I don't see how that it matters to either evolution or creation.

I didn't either until creationist Ken Ham brought it up.
Here is why creationists go crazy over evolution.
If the book of Genesis is fallable, the whole religion's mythology collapses.
No original sin?
Then, no need for Jesus to come down and die for your sins.
Apparently, six days to create the universe and a talking snake doesn't stretch the book's credibility enough already.